MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091990603 · doi:10.1017/cls.2013.29

Témoignage et histoire dans la Commission de vérité et de réconciliation du Canada

2013· article· fr· W2091990603 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ronald Niezen, Marie-Pierre Gadoua

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVietnamese History and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé La Commission de vérité et de réconciliation (CVR) du Canada relative aux pensionnats autochtones nous offre l’opportunité d’observer les processus par le biais desquels les victimes reconsidèrent leur place au sein de l’histoire de l’État. Les témoignages livrés dans ce contexte mettent en relief souffrance et souvenirs d’agression et de torture d’enfants, au détriment d’une vue d’ensemble plus complète et variée des origines, des modes d’opération et des conséquences de ces pensionnats. En favorisant l’articulation d’un certain type de témoignages, la CVR canadienne façonne autant de récits de traumatismes, de crimes institutionnels et d’histoire nationale. Cette forme d’essentialisation des témoignages nous amène à nous questionner sur les capacités de la CVR à dévoiler effectivement la diversité des dynamiques des pensionnats, les raisons de leur établissement, les causes de la corruption de leurs objectifs et les caractéristiques communes qu’ils pourraient avoir avec d’autres formes durables et continues d’abus de pouvoir institutionnel.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0180.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et SociétéSame topicVietnamese History and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207